EDILBERTO MUNSAYAC AND NENA MUNSAYAC, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XV AND LEONOR P. ENRIQUEZ, RE…

Munsayac versus Villasor

The Case

This is an original action for certiorari brought by Edilberto Munsayac and Nena Munsayac against Judge Guillermo Villasor, presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch Fifteen, and against Leonor Enriquez, the private complainant in two dismissed theft cases. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the trial judge's order requiring them to answer a motion for restitution of stolen property filed in criminal cases that had already been dismissed. The case matters because it fixes the rule that the civil aspect of a criminal case lives or dies with the criminal case, and that restitution cannot be ordered where there has been no trial on the merits and no judgment of conviction.

Procedural History

Two criminal informations for theft were filed against one Eduardo Asuncion, also known as Edwin Zaraus, and Edna Madrigal, with Leonor Enriquez as complainant. The first case was raffled to Branch Fifteen of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and the second to Branch Nineteen. The presiding judge of Branch Nineteen ordered the second case consolidated with the first, since both arose from the same incident. On motion of the complainant, who executed an affidavit of desistance, the trial court dismissed both cases. The complainant then filed in the dismissed cases a motion for restitution of movable property, and the respondent judge issued an order directing the petitioners to file their answers to that motion. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied. They then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Facts

Eduardo Asuncion, also known as Edwin Zaraus, and Edna Madrigal were charged with theft of jewelry worth 37,000 pesos in one information, and with theft of gold coins worth 2,000 pesos in another information dated June 27, 1975. The complainant in both cases was Leonor Enriquez. When the accused was arraigned in the first case on July 11, 1975, he pleaded not guilty. Before the accused could be arraigned in the second case, the presiding judge of Branch Nineteen ordered its consolidation with the first, because the two charges arose from the same incident.

At the hearing on August 15, 1975, the prosecutor presented an affidavit of desistance executed by the complainant, who affirmed its contents before the court. She also manifested her intention to file a separate civil action to recover the personal properties subject of the charges. On the same day, her counsel filed a reservation of the right to demand restitution, invoking the case of People versus Alejano. The trial court then issued an order dismissing both criminal cases.

On December 29, 1975, the complainant's counsel filed in the same criminal cases a motion for restitution of movable property and other stolen property, praying that the petitioners be ordered to return certain amounts with legal interest. The petitioners opposed the motion, arguing that the complainant had no personality, that the prayer for damages was beyond the court's jurisdiction, that granting it would violate due process, and that the motion converted a criminal action into a civil case. The respondent judge nonetheless issued the challenged order of June 7, 1976, requiring the petitioners to answer the motion. Reconsideration was denied, and the petitioners brought this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court, after dismissing the criminal cases upon the complainant's desistance and before any trial on the merits, may still order the petitioners to answer a motion for restitution of the stolen property filed in those dismissed cases.
• Whether or not the reservation of the right to file a separate civil action, made by the complainant, can be legally contemplated as a reservation under the rule on implied institution of the civil action with the criminal action.
• Whether or not the doctrine of People versus Alejano, allowing restitution in a criminal case, applies where the criminal cases were dismissed without trial on the merits.

Applicable Provisions

The Court refers to the rule on the implied institution of the civil action with the criminal action, Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, when it holds that the complainant's reservation cannot be legally contemplated as a reservation made under that section:

When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

This provision bears on the case because the complainant's reservation was made after she had desisted from the prosecution, and the Court holds it was not a reservation contemplated by this rule.

Ruling

The Court ruled that the petition is meritorious. On the first issue, it held that the existence of the civil aspect of the criminal cases was basically dependent upon the continuation of the criminal cases. Without any judgment of conviction in the criminal cases, restitution cannot be ordered. In both cases there was no trial on the merits, and the order of dismissal was not rendered on the merits. Neither was the mere filing of the criminal informations proof that the crimes of theft were committed by the accused. It was palpable error for the respondent judge to justify his order by saying that the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action and that it is the civil phase of the process that is being placed before the court.

On the second issue, the Court held that while there was a reservation for the filing of a separate civil action for recovery of the stolen properties, that reservation cannot be legally contemplated as a reservation made under Section 1 of Rule 111. The reservation was uncalled for because the complainant had desisted in prosecuting her charges against the accused, and the dismissal of the charges at her instance carried the dismissal of the civil aspects accompanying the filing of the criminal informations.

On the third issue, the Court held that People versus Alejano finds no application, because the criminal cases were dismissed even before trial on the merits commenced, unlike in Alejano and the cases cited in support of that ruling, where there was a trial on the merits and judgment accordingly rendered. The Court nevertheless noted that the complainant still has the right to recover the properties she lost by filing an entirely new civil action to that effect.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense is deemed instituted with the criminal action, but its existence depends on the continuation of the criminal case. Second, without a judgment of conviction, restitution cannot be ordered; the mere filing of a criminal information is not proof that the crime was committed. Third, where the criminal case is dismissed upon the complainant's desistance and before any trial on the merits, the dismissal carries with it the civil aspect, and a reservation made in that setting is not a reservation under Section 1 of Rule 111. Fourth, the offended party is not without remedy, for she may still recover the property in an entirely new civil action.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the writ prayed for, reversed and set aside the challenged order, and taxed the costs against the respondent.

Remember This

Memorize this line: without a judgment of conviction, restitution cannot be ordered. Examiners use this case to test whether a reservation of the civil action survives the dismissal of the criminal case upon the complainant's desistance before trial.